On 28/06/11 10:19, Anders Logg wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:37:51AM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >> On 28 June 2011 10:26, Johan Hake <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Not sure what is best, but I have at least finished bugs and blueprints >>> assigned to me for both 0.9.12 and 1.0.0-rc1. I will also not be available >>> for >>> code sprint this week. >>> >>> Johan >>> >>> On Monday June 27 2011 03:38:11 Anders Logg wrote: >>>> B0;268;0cDear all, >>>> >>>> What are your thoughts on a release of 1.0? One of the main obstacles, >>>> at least for me personally has been the FEniCS book which has now been >>>> submitted. >>>> >>>> Is there any interest in a code sprint this week, to try to have >>>> something ready for the release by the end of the week? I'm up for it. >>>> >>>> I see two different options: >>>> >>>> 1. Merge the milestons 0.9.12 and 1.0.0-rc1 and release 1.0.0-rc1 at >>>> the end of the week. Then we collect (and maybe fix) bug reports >>>> during the summer and aim for a release of 1.0 in August (possibly >>>> after a 1.0.0-rc2 and rc3). >>>> >>>> 2. Finish up and release 0.9.12 this week and then go into release >>>> mode in August with 1.0.0-rc1, 1.0.0-rc2, ..., 1.0.0. >>>> >>>> In both cases (after releasing 1.0-rc1) we should only fix bugs (not >>>> add new features or change the interface) before releasing 1.0.0. >>>> >>>> I don't know when the Debian import freeze is, so it may have >>>> implications on the choice we need to make. >>>> >>>> Another thing to discuss is what should happen after 1.0.0. I think it >>>> would be good to be much more conservative with interface changes than >>>> what we have been. With the latest change to VariationalProblem, I >>>> think we have converged pretty well so I don't foresee any big changes >>>> will be needed. >>>> >>>> This also relates to the policy in Debian for binary compatibility >>>> with shared libraries which may prevent any big changes to the >>>> interface. I think Johannes knows more about this. >>>> >>>> >>>> So (1) or (2)? Or none of the above? In either case, I think we need >>>> to make a common decision so we can coordinate and others know what to >>>> expect. >>>> >> >> I vote for (2), or similar but calling it 1.0-beta. >> >> My understanding would then be something like: >> Within the week: 1.0-beta1 (or 0.9.12) >> If bugs are fixed during summer: 1.0-beta<n> >> Early august: 1.0-rc1 >> If bugs are fixed during august: 1.0-rc<n> >> Late august: 1.0 release. > > I'm starting to think that is the best option. So here's my suggestion: > > 1. Release 0.9.12 (alias 1.0.0-beta) this week > 2. Release 1.0.0-rc1 August 15 > 3. Release 1.0.0 August 30 > > (or should it be 1.0-rc1?) > > Will this work for other packages (UFL)? Is UFL ready for a 1.0 > release? > > There has also been talk about UFC 2.0 with a reworked interface using > std::vector. Is that something we want to do now? >
What should be fixed now in UFC is changing from double pointers to single pointers for rectangular arrays. Garth > -- > Anders > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
